Military Force in Sardinia
In Sardinia are settled a lot of important military bases. A great
part of isle’s territory is suborinate to military sevitude:
Teulada (7200 hectars): peninsula in Sulcis Inglesiente, it’s the
biggest foreign training zone which includes, with differents “fire
intensities”, all the coast from Capo Teulada to Capo Frasca in
Oristano’s gulf.
The zone is used for aerial and aeronaval exercitations of Nato and
Sixth Fleet (fire against the coast) and includes a training center
for armoured corps too.
Decimomannu :it’s probably Nato’s gratest airport. Its area is as
wide as that of three civil airtports. It is an old airport brought
into use again in 1955 after an agreement between Germany, Canada
and Italy.
Salto di Quirra (12700 hectars): a wide zone includine sperimental
missiles and training interforces’ ranges. These are placed nearly
Perdas de Fegu. Along tha coastthen you arrive to Cao San Lorenzo:
here several Nato and Sixth Fleet’s units are trained, with activity
in various combinations land-air-see.
Capo Frasca (1416 hectars): Nato and USA’s range. Here radar
installations, an heliport and catering bases take place.It’s
conncted with Oristano an Sinis di Cabras’ Torre Frasca andTorre
Grande.
Tempio: Nato’s base for researches, data processing and radar
installations.
At first habe been settled here missiles rampes in the zone of
Limbara, between Ochiri e Tempio.
Tavolara: USA’s base for a talagraphic long wave station in orde to
communicate with the submarines.
La Maddalena-Santo Stefano: Support base for USA’s nuclear powered
submarines.
When we talk about military bases, everywhere they take place, we
have to consider the benefits just as the disavantages due to their
presence. In Sardinia too there are benefits.
First: ancillory’s economic relapses. Second: building restrictions
granted by a zone subordinate to militay servitude.
The disavantages, almost specular to benefits. First: the dipendence
of a community made by people and concerns from the presence of
military activities. Second:limited territory’s avaiability for
citizens in military zone and in closer ones.
This is the most common picture painted in the articles and studies
concerning the subject.
Other ones, instead, consider the question with reference to a long
period temporal horizon, concentrating on the problems of that
citizens who live near the military areas.
The ancillory: what kind of work is made by local workers? What kind
of income is produced?
The ones emplyed in the areas, when the presence of italian civils
is allowed (there are several areas of italian territory where the
admittance even of italian soldiers id forbidden or strongly
discouraged) make, most of all, labour’s works: cleaning, building
or maintenance. Surely in the short period 500 or 1000 pay packets
are considered something positive, but what in the long one?
There isn’t a know-how transfer and a cultural handicap gets rise
because the experience, to take place again, requires the presence
of military structures, assisted by the Governement or by great
productive realities.
Besides creating an economic dependence, often a base’s closing, and
the consequent loss of pay packets, is used as a blackmail to
discourage the ones who would like to obstruct the expansion or are
contesting the presence.
In order to have 500, 1000 or more “military” pay packets, how many
“civil” ones are we loosing?
What’s the impact of mlitary presence on tourism (in particular that
“of quality” on which it’s important to invest for the futue)?
What consideration may do a tourist before booking for an holiday in
the Maddalena’s park, knowing about the presence of nuclear powered
submarines involved in never cleared accidents?
The impossibility for tourism to develop in wide heartly and sea
areas becuse of economic and amployement loss?
For istance Capo Frasca: the crossing of people and boats near the
peninsulawhich closes the Oristano’s Gulf is allowed only on Sunday,
while all the other days is forbidden.
Thanks to military servitude is the territoru tied up by building
abuses?
It’s foolish to have a military bond in order to safe our territoty
from havoces.
And then, it’s not safe at all, because military exercitations mean
damages too. Not only thinking to Fauna, but even to the effect made
by an explosion or by the crossing of a tank on the Flora.
Besides, we can consider the pollution, non officially verified, due
as to uranium as to other substances scattered in the air and water.
Thepresence of nuclear or other carcinogenic materials (never
officially recognized) and the errors/damages to equipments and
means of transport (just as the USA’s submarine base in Santo
Stefano), it’s the case of Villaputzu in the Sarrabus, whose
closeness to Salto di Quirra’s base is considered the reason (non
oficially verified) of local rate of cancer sicks, out of the
national average. Are all doubts, more or less well-grounded, but
they remain and with them remains the uneasiness of citizens for
security and health. It’s difficult solving the problem of bases and
military presence. We have to look far away, programming a
territory’s gradual freeing.
Restoring, or better clearing which are militaries’duties to both
territory and citizens.
Going towards national’s interests of mlitary security, but trying
to find even some kind of economic compensations.
by Alberto Sanna